REACH LX

    Not a REACH user yet?

    Start your free trial today

    GET STARTED
    Book A Call
    TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

    Convergent Validity of Leading Assessment Tools

    How well do popular psychometric assessments align? A rigorous, data-driven analysis comparing REACH Profile against Schutte Emotional Intelligence, Fisher Temperament Inventory, DiSC, and CliftonStrengths — based on research involving over 33,000 participants from 12 countries.

    n = 33,36712 Countries4 Benchmark ToolsPeer-Reviewed Methods

    What is Convergent Validity?

    Convergent validity measures the degree to which two assessments that theoretically should be related are, in fact, related. When a leadership assessment correlates positively with a validated emotional intelligence measure, it provides evidence that the tool genuinely measures the constructs it claims to. High convergent validity means the tool isn't measuring something random — it's aligned with the broader psychological science.

    r ≥ 0.50
    Strong convergent validity
    r = 0.30–0.49
    Moderate convergent validity
    r < 0.30
    Weak or discriminant

    * p < .05    ** p < .01 — Statistical significance indicators used throughout this analysis.

    Headline Findings

    r = .48**
    REACH RQ × Schutte EI

    REACH Quotient shows moderate-to-strong convergent validity with the validated Schutte Emotional Intelligence scale.

    r = .61**
    Achieving Style × Dopamine (FTI)

    REACH Achieving Style strongly correlates with the Dopamine neurochemical expression measured by Fisher Temperament Inventory.

    r = .48**
    Achieving Style × DiSC Dominance

    REACH Achieving Style shows meaningful alignment with DiSC's Dominance construct, confirming convergent measurement.

    r = .23*
    RQ × CliftonStrengths Influencing

    REACH Quotient aligns with the Influencing domain — notable given RQ measures capacity for diverse influence styles.

    Tool-by-Tool Comparison Overview

    Schutte Emotional Intelligence Test

    33-item self-report EI measure based on Salovey & Mayer (1990) model including appraisal, recognition, and utilisation.

    n = 69
    Strongest Correlation
    r = .46**Relating Style × SSEIT
    • RQ significantly correlated with SSEIT (r = .48**), confirming REACH measures EI-related constructs
    • Counseling cluster showed strongest alignment (r = .55**) — consistent with empathy-based EI
    • Consideration dimension strongly linked (r = .52**), validating relational construct
    • Driving cluster less correlated (r = .32**) — appropriately discriminant for task-oriented skills

    Fisher Temperament Inventory

    56-item neurochemical expression measure of Dopamine, Serotonin, Testosterone, and Estrogen/Oxytocin systems.

    n = 323
    Strongest Correlation
    r = .61**Achieving Style × Dopamine
    • Achieving Style strongly linked to Dopamine (r = .61**) and Testosterone (r = .40**)
    • Relating Style positively associated with Estrogen/Oxytocin (r = .34**) — neurochemical basis for empathy
    • Consideration × Estrogen/Oxytocin (r = .43**) provides biological underpinning for relational styles
    • Profile preferences map cleanly to dominant neurochemical systems

    DiSC Typology

    Four-factor personality framework measuring Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness.

    n = 205
    Strongest Correlation
    r = .48**Achieving Style × Dominance
    • Achieving Style and Dominance (r = .48**) — strong convergent evidence for achievement-oriented constructs
    • Assertiveness × Dominance (r = .52**) — highest single-dimension alignment between the two tools
    • Relating Style × Influence (r = .23**) and Relating Style × Dominance (r = −.22**) — expected divergence
    • DiSC showed no significant correlation with RQ — expected, as DiSC lacks skill/EI measurement

    CliftonStrengths (Gallup)

    Talent theme assessment across 34 strengths clustered into Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building, and Strategic Thinking domains.

    n = 114
    Strongest Correlation
    r = .61**Achieving Style × Dopamine-linked themes
    • RQ × Influencing domain (r = .23*) — confirms RQ captures influence capacity beyond style
    • Deliberative (r = −.57**) and Discipline (r = −.43**) inversely correlate with Relating Style — appropriate discriminant
    • Communication × Relating Style (r = .50**) — strong convergence on interpersonal constructs
    • Woo × Relating Style (r = .52**) — validates social orientation measurement

    Detailed Correlation Data

    Complete correlation matrices from the technical validation research. Cells are color-coded by effect size.

    REACH Skill-based Characteristics × Schutte Emotional Intelligence

    Convergent validity between REACH Quotient and validated EI measure

    Skill-based Characteristic SSEIT Correlation
    REACH Quotient (RQ) 0.48**
    Counseling Cluster
    Counseling Characteristics Cluster 0.55**
    Assimilating Team Members 0.38**
    Cultivating Team Spirit 0.52**
    Identifying Personal Needs 0.50**
    Recognizing Others' Efforts 0.56**
    Coaching Cluster
    Coaching Characteristics Cluster 0.50**
    Building Rapport 0.55**
    Easing Tensions During Conflict 0.34**
    Finding Opportunities For Synergy 0.32**
    Rallying Others Around A Cause 0.43**
    Driving Cluster
    Driving Characteristics Cluster 0.32**
    Establishing Clear Expectations 0.27*
    Evaluating Individual Performance 0.26*
    Exercising Control Over Processes 0.21
    Guiding Team During Change 0.37**
    Advising Cluster
    Advising Characteristics Cluster 0.29*
    Addressing Quality Concerns 0.29*
    Aligning Resources With Needs 0.19
    Designing Team Structure/Function 0.17
    Integrating Diverse Perspectives 0.28*
    n = 69* p < .05; ** p < .01

    REACH Style-based Characteristics × Schutte Emotional Intelligence

    Style-based Characteristic SSEIT Correlation
    Relating Style 0.46**
    Relating Style Dimensions
    Affiliation 0.25*
    Consideration 0.52**
    Openness 0.30*
    Status Motivation -0.05
    Self-protection 0.28*
    Achieving Style 0.17
    Achieving Style Dimensions
    Intensity 0.05
    Assertiveness 0.26*
    Risk Tolerance 0.07
    Adaptability 0.05
    Decision-making 0.24*
    n = 69* p < .05; ** p < .01

    REACH Skill-based Characteristics × Fisher Temperament Inventory

    Convergent validity with neurochemical expression systems

    Skill-based Characteristic Dopamine Serotonin Testosterone Estrogen/Oxytocin
    REACH Quotient (RQ) 0.33** 0.09 0.20** 0.07
    Counseling Cluster
    Counseling Characteristics Cluster 0.31** 0.03 -0.04 0.27**
    Assimilating Team Members 0.26** 0.07 0.04 0.14*
    Cultivating Team Spirit 0.32** 0.00 -0.01 0.17**
    Identifying Personal Needs 0.23** -0.06 -0.11* 0.28**
    Recognizing Others' Efforts 0.23** 0.08 -0.05 0.29**
    Coaching Cluster
    Coaching Characteristics Cluster 0.34** 0.03 0.06 0.14*
    Building Rapport 0.29** 0.01 -0.04 0.12*
    Easing Tensions During Conflict 0.22** 0.05 0.09 0.09
    Finding Opportunities For Synergy 0.21** 0.01 0.15** 0.04
    Rallying Others Around A Cause 0.38** 0.04 0.01 0.20**
    Driving Cluster
    Driving Characteristics Cluster 0.24** 0.12* 0.29** -0.08
    Establishing Clear Expectations 0.21** 0.14* 0.18** -0.01
    Evaluating Individual Performance 0.11* 0.13* 0.20** -0.04
    Exercising Control Over Processes 0.17** 0.14* 0.31** -0.10
    Guiding Team During Change 0.29** 0.00 0.25** -0.10
    Advising Cluster
    Advising Characteristics Cluster 0.22** 0.12* 0.36** -0.09
    Addressing Quality Concerns 0.19** 0.11* 0.27** -0.12*
    Aligning Resources With Needs 0.17** 0.11* 0.36** -0.16**
    Designing Team Structure/Function 0.19** 0.13* 0.29** -0.04
    Integrating Diverse Perspectives 0.15** 0.02 0.23** 0.03
    n = 323* p < .05; ** p < .01

    REACH Style-based Characteristics × Fisher Temperament Inventory

    Style-based Characteristic Dopamine Serotonin Testosterone Estrogen/Oxytocin
    Relating Style 0.20** 0.01 -0.22** 0.34**
    Relating Style Dimensions
    Affiliation 0.12* -0.08 -0.05 -0.02
    Consideration 0.16** 0.03 -0.23** 0.43**
    Openness 0.14* -0.02 -0.16** 0.27**
    Status Motivation -0.16** -0.04 -0.04 -0.18**
    Self-protection 0.02 -0.13* -0.17** -0.16**
    Achieving Style 0.61** -0.18** 0.40** -0.14**
    Achieving Style Dimensions
    Intensity 0.24** 0.18** 0.29** -0.11*
    Assertiveness 0.45** 0.01 0.45** -0.21**
    Risk Tolerance 0.57** -0.18** 0.35** -0.05
    Adaptability 0.52** -0.34** 0.11* -0.05
    Decision-making 0.22** -0.41** -0.18** 0.08
    n = 323* p < .05; ** p < .01

    REACH Profile Mapping to Fisher Temperament Dominant Systems

    Mean style percentiles by dominant neurochemical expression

    Style Dopamine Serotonin Testosterone Estrogen/Oxytocin
    Relating Style 55.12 49.36 44.76 68.49
    Achieving Style 70.73 36.63 64.92 36.08
    Predicted REACH Profile Coaching Advising Driving Counseling
    n = 283Percentile scores reveal clear profile differentiation by neurochemical dominance

    REACH Skill-based Characteristics × DiSC

    DiSC does not measure skills or EI — limited convergent validity expected for RQ

    Skill-based Characteristic Dominance Influence Steadiness Conscientiousness
    REACH Quotient (RQ) 0.12 -0.02 -0.09 -0.11
    Counseling Cluster
    Counseling Characteristics Cluster 0.03 0.05 -0.06 -0.09
    Coaching Cluster
    Coaching Characteristics Cluster 0.07 0.06 -0.10 -0.10
    Driving Cluster
    Driving Characteristics Cluster 0.17* -0.05 -0.12 -0.09
    Advising Cluster
    Advising Characteristics Cluster 0.14* -0.09 -0.06 -0.08
    n = 205* p < .05; ** p < .01 — Limited skill correlations expected; DiSC lacks EI measurement

    REACH Style-based Characteristics × DiSC

    Style-based Characteristic Dominance Influence Steadiness Conscientiousness
    Relating Style -0.22** 0.23** 0.03 0.02
    Relating Style Dimensions
    Affiliation -0.04 0.17* -0.02 -0.07
    Consideration -0.23** 0.12 0.04 0.09
    Openness -0.12 0.18* 0.01 -0.02
    Status Motivation -0.22** -0.05 0.17* 0.13
    Self-protection -0.19** 0.17* 0.05 0.04
    Achieving Style 0.48** 0.15* -0.27** -0.42**
    Achieving Style Dimensions
    Intensity 0.31** -0.11 -0.11 -0.15*
    Assertiveness 0.52** 0.24** -0.37** -0.48**
    Risk Tolerance 0.37** 0.12 -0.17* -0.37**
    Adaptability 0.04 0.01 0.00 -0.06
    Decision-making -0.01 0.20** -0.06 -0.09
    n = 205* p < .05; ** p < .01

    REACH Profile Style Percentiles by DiSC Dominant Type

    Mean Relating Style and Achieving Style by DiSC classification

    Style Dominance Influence Steadiness Conscientiousness
    Relating Style 46.85 68.57 53.46 50.88
    Achieving Style 56.77 47.59 39.16 30.93
    n = 205* p < .05; ** p < .01

    REACH Style-based Characteristics × CliftonStrengths Domains

    Broad domain-level convergent patterns

    Style-based Characteristic Executing Influencing Relationship Building Strategic Thinking
    Relating Style -0.20* 0.28** 0.15 -0.17
    Relating Style Dimensions
    Affiliation -0.22* 0.29** 0.06 -0.06
    Consideration -0.14 0.15 0.18 -0.16
    Openness -0.16 0.35** 0.07 -0.17
    Status Motivation -0.05 -0.10 0.39** -0.28**
    Self-protection -0.24** 0.03 0.14 0.07
    Achieving Style -0.13 0.20* -0.18 0.16
    Achieving Style Dimensions
    Intensity 0.24** -0.16 -0.27** 0.16
    Assertiveness -0.09 0.33** -0.18* 0.05
    Risk Tolerance -0.10 0.12 -0.10 0.11
    Adaptability -0.16 0.09 -0.10 0.18
    Decision-making -0.41** 0.33** 0.18 -0.04
    n = 114* p < .05; ** p < .01

    REACH Skill-based Characteristics × CliftonStrengths Domains

    Skill-based Characteristic Executing Influencing Relationship Building Strategic Thinking
    REACH Quotient (RQ) -0.10 0.23* 0.02 -0.10
    Counseling Cluster
    Counseling Characteristics Cluster -0.16 0.17 0.29** -0.28**
    Assimilating Team Members -0.18 0.08 0.25** -0.16
    Cultivating Team Spirit -0.06 0.20* 0.20* -0.29**
    Identifying Personal Needs -0.18 0.19* 0.22* -0.20*
    Recognizing Others' Efforts -0.05 0.04 0.19* -0.19*
    Coaching Cluster
    Coaching Characteristics Cluster -0.16 0.15 0.17 -0.13
    Driving Cluster
    Driving Characteristics Cluster 0.05 0.21* -0.22* 0.03
    Advising Cluster
    Advising Characteristics Cluster 0.00 0.09 -0.19* 0.13
    n = 114* p < .05; ** p < .01

    Key Takeaways for Practitioners

    REACH measures what it claims to measure

    The REACH Quotient (RQ) demonstrates significant convergent validity with the Schutte Emotional Intelligence Test (r = .48**), confirming that REACH genuinely captures emotional intelligence constructs — not just personality traits. This separates it from tools like DiSC, which showed no significant EI correlation.

    Neurochemical underpinning adds scientific depth

    The Fisher Temperament Inventory study (n = 323) revealed that REACH styles map cleanly onto dominant neurochemical systems. This provides a biological basis for why style preferences are stable over time and why targeted coaching is needed to develop agility across profiles.

    DiSC alignment confirms style measurement — but reveals gaps

    REACH style factors strongly correlate with DiSC constructs (Achieving Style × Dominance: r = .48**), validating convergent measurement. However, DiSC shows no correlation with RQ — because DiSC does not measure skills or emotional intelligence. REACH captures both dimensions.

    CliftonStrengths validates influence capacity

    The significant positive correlation between RQ and the Influencing domain (r = .23*) is particularly meaningful — REACH Quotient was designed to measure capacity for exercising diverse styles of influence, and the CliftonStrengths data confirms this. Communication (r = .50**) and Woo (r = .52**) themes strongly validate the relational constructs.

    Methodology & Source

    This analysis is derived from the REACH LX Technical Report (Revised November 2025) by Drew Tatnell BPsych(Hons) MPsychOrg MAPS, originally authored by Dr Doug Waldo DBA SHRM-SCP CNC. Data includes over 33,000 participants from 12 countries collected between 2012–2025. All correlation coefficients are Pearson product-moment correlations with two-tailed significance tests. The REACH model is published and distributed by OrgDev Institute Pty Ltd trading as REACH LX.

    Reference instruments: Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (Schutte et al., 1998); Fisher Temperament Inventory (Johnson-Vickberg & Christfort, 2017); DiSC Typology; CliftonStrengths (Gallup).

    REACH LX: the engine powering
    leadership performance.

    REACH LX is built for: